The Karnataka High Court recently emphasized the need for caution when granting anticipatory bail, particularly in cases involving cyber economic crimes. The observation came during the dismissal of a petition filed by two accused individuals, who sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving data theft and other related offenses.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz, while delivering the judgment, highlighted the technical nature of such crimes and the need for custodial interrogation to fully understand the scope of the data theft and the methods employed to conceal it. The petitioners had approached the court seeking anticipatory bail in relation to a case registered by the Northeast CEN crime police station under Sections 66(B) and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act and provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complaint was filed by the CEO of a company, who alleged that the two petitioners—former employees, one of whom was a vice president—conspired to steal confidential company data for the benefit of their current employer.
The trial court had already rejected their anticipatory bail petitions on January 13, 2025, noting that the petitioners were accused of conspiring to destabilize national defense data for financial gain. The petitioners, however, argued before the high court that the FIR lacked specific allegations and that the investigation was based on insufficient evidence.
After reviewing the materials presented, Justice Nawaz emphasized that the complainant’s company specializes in aerospace and defense research and services several sensitive government agencies like the Indian Army, Navy, Air Force, and organizations such as BEL, Hindustan Aeronautics, and the Defence Research and Development Organisation. Given the highly sensitive nature of the company’s business, the judge ruled that there was sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioners.
Justice Nawaz further stated that granting anticipatory bail would risk hampering the investigation, particularly by preventing the collection of crucial information and the potential tampering with evidence. The petitioners’ actions demonstrated an attempt to misappropriate proprietary data even after resignation, further justifying the denial of bail.
The court’s ruling underscores the complexities of dealing with cybercrimes and highlights the importance of thorough investigations in cases involving sensitive data theft and the potential threat to national security.